9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eged clandestinely manufactured goods. Clandestine manufacture of goods by M/s Deep Jyoti Rubber Pvt. Ltd. alleged in the said Show Cause Notice dated 06/11/2003 is not established - the value of clearance for both the years 2001-02 & 2002-03 was less than threshold limit of ₹ 1 Crore and therefore, the said Show Cause Notice 06/11/2003 does not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1176, 1177, 1178 & 1179/2006-EX[DB] - A/71333-71336/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 26-9-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate, for Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per : Ani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived at actual value of clearance during the Financial Year 2001-02 as ₹ 1,11,21,547/- which included value of clearance of ₹ 13,20,797/- in respect of which there were allegations that the said value was related to the goods clandestinely cleared without issue of invoices. The said actual value of clearance also included ₹ 3,54,329.10/- as the differential value realized by the manufacturer-appellant thorough M/s Rubber Traders India Pvt. Ltd. Similarly, chart prepared for Financial Year 2002-03 as indicated that Revenue has arrived at actual value of clearance during the Financial Year 2002-03 ₹ 1,23,53,403/- including ₹ 23,12,128/- on account of allegations of clandestine clearance of goods without issue of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther submitted before the Original Authority that the demand was not sustainable and prayed that the Show Cause Notice dated 06/11/2003 may be dropped. They further contended that there was no investigation to establish as to how the raw-materials were brought and to whom the goods were sold and that there was no evidence to establish the clandestine manufacture and removal of goods. They further submitted through additional reply 22/12/2004 in respect of goods transferred to M/s Rubber Traders India Pvt. Ltd. that there was no allegation that the goods transferred to M/s Rubber Traders India Pvt. Ltd. were at a price lower than the price at which the goods were sold at factory gate and therefore, the allegation of under valuation was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that in the proceedings it has emerged that the allegations by Revenue was that the said loose slips/sheets were maintained by Gate Keeper/Security Guard. He has further submitted that when the ownership on such loose slips/sheets is denied and no further corroborative evidence is adduced by Revenue from buyers, transporters raw-material suppliers, then such notice does not sustain as held by this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur Versus Heliwal Polypackers Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2016 (340) E.L.T. 204 (Tri. Delhi). He has further submitted that similar finding has been recorded by this Tribunal in the case of Yashwant Shell Sand Mfg. Co. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune reported at 2007 (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh the case laws relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the appellant, we find that Revenue did not carried any investigation in respect of procurement of raw-materials, manufacture of goods alleged to be clandestinely removed, transporters of the goods alleged to have been clandestinely removed and the purchasers of said goods. Further, Revenue also did not investigate into flow back of money on clearance of alleged clandestinely manufactured goods. Therefore, we find that the ratio of the final order in the above stated case law of in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. We, therefore hold that clandestine manufacture of goods by M/s Deep Jyoti Rubber Pvt. Ltd. alleged in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
